[CQ-Contest] serial numbers

[Zack Widup]

Because other sequences than n+1 would be a lot more fun. How about factorials?
:-)

73, Zack W9SZ


On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net> wrote:
> Progressive.
> Sequential.
> Incremental.
> Consecutive.
>
> I should think the intention, obviously, is that you start with 1 for the
> first QSO, 2 for the second, 3 for the 3rd, and so on.
>
> Such a simple concept.  And yet it appears to be somewhat controversial...
> else why would there be so much arguing about it?
>
> 73
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Jairam
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 9:58 PM
> To: N7DF
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] serial numbers
>
> This is what the rules say:
>
>  Exchange: RS(T) report plus a progressive contact serial number
> starting with 001 for the first contact
>
> A progressive serial number. Is that the same as a sequential number, or
> not?
>
> Ryan, N2RJ
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:41 AM, N7DF <n7df at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I have noticed that there is no requirement in the WPX rules for serial
> numbers to be sequential, only that they begin with 001
>>
>> Reminds me of the school kids chant "one two skip a few, forty four, skip
> some more"
>>
>> Nothing against foxing out the competition by skipping ahead occasionally
> to give numbers larger than them.
>>
>> N7DF
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan A. Jairam,
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>